STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE of Punjab has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order dated January 10, 1994 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition 2325 of 1989. The learned Single Judge, on interpretation of Rules 3 (1) and 5 (1) of the Demobilised Armed Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab State Non Technical Services) Rules 1968, (for short, the Rules) granted the desired relief to the writ petitioner - respondent.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to set-out the facts in detail and suffice to mention some admitted facts which are as under:respondent - Writ Petitioner was born on January 11, 1950 and passed his matriculation in 1968. He joined the Military service on May 20,1969 and came to be released form the said service on April 16,1975. He came to be appointed as Clerk on August 26, 1975 in the office of Directorate of Prosecution and Litigation against the reserved post for ex-serviceman. Petitioner thereafter made applications/representations to the appellant requesting to give him the benefit of the said Rules as he had served in the armed forces. It may be stated that these Rules were initially published in the year 1968 and brought into force w. e. f. November 1, 1966. The said Rules came to be amended in 1976. Rule 5 which deals with seniority and pay after counting the military service, Rule 5 under -went a substantial change and this was sought to be retrospectively applied from 1966. There does not seem to be any dispute that if the said amended Rule is sought to be applied retrospectively respondent- petitioner can get no benefit of military service.

(3.) MR . G. S. Manauli, learned counsel for the respondent:- petitioner, however, urged that the vested right which had accrued to the respondent-writ petitioner by virtue of the existing Rules, can not be taken away by the subsequent amendment. In support of this submission, he drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 1858 (Ex. Captain K. C. Arora v. State of Haryana and Ors. ). Learned Counsel, therefore, urged that the learned Single Judge has rightly granted the relief to the petitioner and there is no substance in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.